Flourescent lamp switch

[J.B. Wood]

On 05/08/2018 05:00 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

as I already explained, my experiment & product showed that guess to not be the case.


NT

Hello, and I believe my last OP supports the result you are obtaining as
compared to operation with a glow switch. In your previous post you
have reported a cause and effect but no accompanying hypothesis of why
that result differs. I have attempted to explain things using
established electrical theory ("theory" taken to mean "fact" in a
science/engineering context). But my responses to your posts were
provoked by the disdain you have for glow starters. While glow starters
are arguably obsolete technology, you fail to demonstrate why they are
"horrible" and that's why I initially responded. So I would conclude
you have provided an opinion, unsupported by theory. I have nothing
further to add. Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

There is no reason on this planet to maintain a starter-based fluorescent fixture as such.
a) It is an energy pig.
b) The lamps required contain a relatively large amount of mercury.
c) They are relatively short-lived.
d) There is an LED equivalent available for very nearly every vintage fluorescent lamp ever made in any quantity.

So, whether one type of Luddite-approved technology is better than another does not change the fact that it remains Luddite-Approved technology.

Now, in answer to Tom's question on what to do with his "new" lamp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNYpxc6stMo

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[J.B. Wood]

On 05/09/2018 08:40 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

There is no reason on this planet to maintain a starter-based fluorescent fixture as such.
a) It is an energy pig.
b) The lamps required contain a relatively large amount of mercury.
c) They are relatively short-lived.
d) There is an LED equivalent available for very nearly every vintage fluorescent lamp ever made in any quantity.

So, whether one type of Luddite-approved technology is better than another does not change the fact that it remains Luddite-Approved technology.

Now, in answer to Tom's question on what to do with his "new" lamp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNYpxc6stMo

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Hello, and aren't you the same Peter from over at
rec.antiques.radio+phono that I would assume appreciates having access
to that luddite tech such as vacuum tubes? I have a few antique soft
drink and beer advertising signs that use fluorescent tubes, coil
ballasts and starters. It's nice to know I can still inexpensively and
easily maintain them in original condition without having to rely on
used or NOS (at least for now) components. (I don't turn the signs on
every day so the lamps and starters tend to last a very long time.)
Antique and nostalgia issues aside, there are cogent arguments, as you
point out, for replacing the innards of an assembly with newer tech, if
feasible (cost of components, fits the footprint of the enclosure, etc.)
Otherwise dispose/recycle it and purchase a modern equivalent. Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

I think I distinguished between museum-pieces (used loosely) and tools. On more than one occasion, I have entrusted my life, health and dexterity to various tools, such that I would not wish to do so with Luddite-Approved technology. For the same reason that I use modern capacitors, modern resistors and similar when making repairs to vintage vacuum-tube equipment. But, I tend to use real tubes vs. modern solid-state devices - which exist in surprising numbers. At the same time there are occasions where I do use a modern solid-state device such as a VR-based plug-in ILO a 50A1 in a T/O, or a Weber "copper-top" rectifier ILO a 5AR4 so as to preserve scarce and costly original parts. But there is no modification to the original to do so.

Your signs are 'museum pieces'. A lamp is a tool. When I am working on my 'museum pieces', I want the best and most reliable tools I can afford. And I want my finished products to be safe, reliable and fit for present society.. I do not subscribe to the belief that the Louis XIV Chair with rotting-but-original fabric has any value as a chair, as it is useless as such. THAT is a true museum piece.

Horses for Courses.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Wednesday, 9 May 2018 11:41:57 UTC+1, J.B. Wood wrote:

On 05/08/2018 05:00 PM, tabbypurr wrote:


as I already explained, my experiment & product showed that guess to not be the case.


NT

Hello, and I believe my last OP supports the result you are obtaining as
compared to operation with a glow switch. In your previous post you
have reported a cause and effect but no accompanying hypothesis of why
that result differs.

you must have quite missed my explanation then.

I have attempted to explain things using
established electrical theory ("theory" taken to mean "fact" in a
science/engineering context).

you guessed at the cause. It was a reasonable guess, but only a guess, and found to not be what's actually happening.

But my responses to your posts were
provoked by the disdain you have for glow starters. While glow starters
are arguably obsolete technology, you fail to demonstrate why they are
"horrible" and that's why I initially responded. So I would conclude
you have provided an opinion, unsupported by theory. I have nothing
further to add. Sincerely,

NT

 

[J.B. Wood]

On 05/09/2018 01:50 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

I do not subscribe to the belief that the Louis XIV Chair with rotting-but-original fabric has any value as a chair, as it is useless as such. THAT is a true museum piece.

Horses for Courses.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Hello, and one person's junk (including "luddite-tech" radios) are
another's treasures. The OP's lamp may not be a candidate for an
auction but it may have sentimental value and perhaps the OP desires to
keep it in original condition as much as feasible. That original fabric
chair may well be worth more at auction than one with replacement
fabric. Old radios with original components? Don't know if the same
thing can be said. Sincerely,
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

 

On Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:25:22 UTC+1, J.B. Wood wrote:

On 05/09/2018 01:50 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

I do not subscribe to the belief that the Louis XIV Chair with rotting-but-original fabric has any value as a chair, as it is useless as such. THAT is a true museum piece.

Horses for Courses.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Hello, and one person's junk (including "luddite-tech" radios) are
another's treasures. The OP's lamp may not be a candidate for an
auction but it may have sentimental value and perhaps the OP desires to
keep it in original condition as much as feasible. That original fabric
chair may well be worth more at auction than one with replacement
fabric. Old radios with original components? Don't know if the same
thing can be said. Sincerely,

Some of today's junk will be tomorrow's antiques.

Some value the technology of the thing, some only care about the case.


NT

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Tom Del Rosso" schreef in bericht newscg95k$j0i$1@dont-email.me...

The switch mechanism cracked in my magnifying lamp. No ballast. Just a
momentary and a latching switch combined, that feed the 4 terminals on
the tube. The equivalents I find are around $20. Must be a cheaper
source. Physical shape doesn't matter much, since the hole can be
enlarged.

Thanks.



Had a similar lamp. The switch was relatively fragile and worned out fast.
At first a mounted a ordinanry universal starter that wordked for some time.
Then I replaced the old fashioned ballast by the eletronics of e fluoriscent
lamp. Worked for years as a charm. Starts fast and the tube lasts much
longer.

petrus bitbyter